Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Scriptorium
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 315 active users here.

Contents

Announcements[edit]

Administrators removed from Bibliowiki[edit]

wikilivres:Bibliowiki:Community_Portal/en#Admin.2FBureaucrat_Requirements.2F_Hosting_Expenses_--_RESOLVED has removed so many administrators there including myself, for no financial contribution. Regardless of how strict we enforce URAA, I am no longer able to move works to Bibliowiki, so from now on would someone else do it, please?--Jusjih (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done as much as you need. Just {{ping}} me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I have two pings at WS:CV now.--Jusjih (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jusjih: Odd. I never saw these. I will move them tonite. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

Change wording for guidance on line break removal[edit]

As per discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Guidelines for removal of line breaks

I propose wording for guidance on line break removal at Help:Beginner's guide to typography be changed to one of the following options:

Remove line breaks. 
Printed books break lines of text to fit lines to a page. Scanned texts often render line breaks at the end of each line according to how they appear in the original text. Such breaks are considered artefacts of the printing process. When transcribing a text from its source into a Wikisource page, it is best practice to remove these line breaks. Although web browsers will naturally wrap text for the individual reader, there are cases where leaving in line breaks proves problematic. It is recommended that line breaks be removed during the proofread stage of editing to lessen distraction during the validation stage. There are tools available for this purpose if manual removal proves tedious:
Removal of line breaks. 
Printed books break lines of text to fit lines to a page. Scanned texts often render line breaks at the end of each line according to how they appear in the original text. Such breaks are considered artefacts of the printing process. Although web browsers will naturally wrap text for the individual reader, there are cases where leaving in line breaks proves problematic. Therefore, when transcribing a text from its source into a Wikisource page, it is recommended that these line breaks be removed during the proofread stage of editing. Doing so at this stage lessens distraction during the validation stage. There are tools available for this purpose if manual removal proves tedious:

Option 1 considers removal "best practice" and is more stringent in wording; option 2 is less stringent, yet recommends removal. Suggestions welcomed. [updated] Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If neither option is desirable, then please state that as well and we can go back to the drawing board. But it is my belief that the current wording needs to be less confusing and contradictory than it is. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: I think option 1 sounds good. Also, the heading is a guideline in its own right, so if someone doesn't read anything more than the ToC they'll get some idea of the recommended practice. Sam Wilson 03:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I had hoped for more input. I don't believe the wording should remain as is for the reasons listed in the previous discussion linked to above (if not yet archived). If there are no objections in the next day or so, I will change the wording to option 1 and take any lumps from there. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't mention the tools or link to them in the Beginniner's Guide. That's a more advanced technique. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Why not at least leave mention of the availability of tools? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
My reasoning for including mention as well as links: While it may be more advanced, it gives a further option. Some (like myself) may not have even known to ask about the availability, and it would spare the question being brought up at Scriptorium or elsewhere in the future for those who would think to ask. The answer would already be supplied. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The intention of the Beginner's Guide was to provide a straightforward explanation for complete beginners. Complete beginner's need not have the distraction of all the bells and whistles. Any gadget or script the deals with line breaks will assume the user understands how to deal with certain forms of end-of-line punctuation, Victorian hyphenation rules, and other advanced points of editing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Me belaboring: I always assume even the "complete beginner" comes with more technical know-how than I do. Do you think it would distract so as to possibly discourage a potential editor? If not, it may even serve to inspire—? We may get questions about it, or it will simply be information that is ignored (which would have been my approach had I come across it way back when). If I've still not convinced you, I can leave it out, but it would be good to include it somewhere. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
By all means include it on some more advanced Help page or guide. My point is that such tools are more advanced than desirable for a "Beginner's Guide". --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
OK. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Bot approval requests[edit]

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

On the Coromandel Coast[edit]

There appears to be two pages missing in the book Index:On the Coromandel Coast.djvu between 11 and 12. i.e. The Table of Contents second page and the first page of the main contents. Can we solve the problem or stop working on the book.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rajasekhar1961: I have found those two versions with those two pages :
Assassas77 (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much Assassas77. The first reference is exactly similar. But I do not know how to add the missing two pages to the index pages already uploaded in English wikisource. Can you help me. I am continuing the proofreading of this important book about the Coromandel coast. Thank you once again.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it is actually impossible to add pages to an existing uploaded file. However, I'd rather ask someone more experienced about that. The administrators can probably do something about it I guess. Assassas77 (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no possibility to amend any uploaded file; we have never done that. What is possible is to download, amend, and then upload to overwrite an existing file. If we have a more complete file, if it is the same edition, then upload that, and we will simply move the pages from one version to another. If it is a different edition, then we cannot. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: Yes check.svg Done . Now the the pages will need to be moved by increment order of 2 from p.12 to p.372. This can be done with this script, but Linux O.S. is required, which I don't have. Hrishikes (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Put a specific and informative request on WS:BR and when someone has some time one of us will use the available bots. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Strip google notices[edit]

Could someone remove the google notices for the following works?;

Thank you GhostOrchid35 (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious, when removing the notice page (especially in a case like this, where transcription has already been started), is it preferable to replace the notice page with a blank page, so that pagination doesn't get messed up? -Pete (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
It's certainly easier; if you remove the page completely then you need to move all the existing pages and ensure the redirects get deleted. Because of this, I would replace with a blank page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The Google page often shifts the pagination. In practical terms, it usually works either way, but having a blank page ahead of the front cover is weird, and having even and odd pages flopped in the DjVu can makes for some unfortunate consequences when trying to read that file like a book. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
As we have existing files, and we only wanted to build the one tool, it was determined to simply replace the problematic page with a blank page; that means no other manipulation. We don't start with a clean slate. <shrug> @Mpaa: where are we with having wikisource-bot or another bot doing those replacements? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Page and OCR do not sync[edit]

The OCR and page images do not match. I was told that I might find help here.

Index:Birdcraft-1897.djvu --RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

[Resolved] Purge options don't refresh a page with an image[edit]

I am replacing a number of poorly cleaned images and after uploading them to the commons, the Purge tool there no longer purges the page immediately. Consequently it affects the WS page I am working on. Here, none of the purge tools do anything. The purge is delayed perhaps some days after. Has there been any change in the purge frequency procedures? — Ineuw talk 09:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Mrs Beeton -[edit]

A search on archive.org produced a very nearly 1st edition courtesy of the Wellcome Library (https://archive.org/details/b20392758)

Does anyone want to take it on? (We already have the 1907 updated edition.)

I also found a companion volume (The Housewives Treasury) https://archive.org/details/b28130807

I am strongly thinking either these could be a future POTM. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Categorical labeling of laws[edit]

I've noticed that much of Wikisource's legal content seems to be haphazardly categorized, with a number of categories that seem to overlap or duplicate other categories, and have little broad usage. There are only 24 pages tagged with Category:Law, 7 pages tagged with Category:Laws, 6 pages tagged with Category:Legal_Documents, 5 pages tagged with Category:Legal, and 1 page tagged with Category:Legislation. This suggests to me that they are either misused, and these pages should be recategorized in more specific ways, like Category:Copyright Law, or they are underused, and many other pages should be added to them. I haven't been able to find any guideline as to how these should be handled; is there any consensus already which I'm just not able to find? Qwertygiy (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Qwertygiy: A couple of things. Firstly, in our experience at enWS, categorisation for works is not overly effective, so we tend to be more likely actively curate collective pages, either on Author: or Portal: namespace pages. So your observations are not particularly surprising, and as law reproduction is often less sexy and often typographically more difficult, it is simply less featured in people's endeavours, so people tend to drop in and drop out of such work. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-11[edit]

19:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Page history stats links need revision — Template:Histlegend[edit]

Hi. I was just looking at the stats links we give on a history page, and truthfully they are well past prime

We probably should be looking at a tool like

as a replacement for history, and I wonder whether of the usefulness of that complete list. Do others use the history links much? — billinghurst sDrewth

Tech News: 2018-12[edit]

15:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Trizek (WMF): Any reason why "Updates for this page [Special:WantedPages] are currently disabled." and "Data here [at Special:WantedPages] will not presently be refreshed." on various wikis? A cursory search of Phabricator didn't turn up any open issues on the subject. Mahir256 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
It does get refreshed, just less often, last done 12 March 2018; presumably system intensive so just less often. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Huge collection of historical children's books from UFL[edit]

The University of Florida has a large collection of more than 130,000 books: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/baldwin

Would this be of any interest to Wikisource? --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

We could process them, but we have scans of millions of books available; it's the man-power to transcribe them. If you're interested in one, go ahead, but it's probably not a great idea to try and load them in mass.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Over 130000 books, but only 87000 catalogued, and just over 6000 digitized. Hesperian 01:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
If you searched for the most popular, you could test a few out. "3 little kittens" looks good - illustration should be our strong suit, and making them tablet friendly could be a growth area. and a meetup in Fl. ? Slowking4SvG's revenge 20:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Would not Internet Archive be better equipped to process and store these books? — Ineuw talk 01:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
There would be value in Internet Archive handling these books, but we would bring our own value to them, as well. If we processed the books, the illustrations could be used separately (if Commons would accept them, possibly to great use on various projects) and the text could be automatically translated and read by screen readers, as well as hand-translated with much greater ease; other Wikisources could cut and paste our structure and just worry about getting the words right.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
IMO it should go UFL -> IA -> Wikisource -Einstein95 (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Using the Vivaldi browser for proofreading?[edit]

I have been occasionally proofreading using the Vivaldi web browser, and I am very curious if anyone else here uses it for the same purpose and what is their take on it. — Ineuw talk 01:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have. It's... fine, I guess. Doesn't lock up occasionally like Waterfox. -Einstein95 (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I use it all the time and I love it. For proofreading, it's not much different than other browsers, though the feature that allows to display two tabs side-by-side has come in handy a couple of times. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I found it very fast, probably the fastest browser along with Opera, although there are some features on which I am relying on in Firefox that are are missing.
Do either one of you use the Wikimedia Alt+Shift family of keyboard shortcuts like Alt+Shift+P for Preview, and Alt+Shift+S for Save (aka Publish changes)? There is a list of shortcuts published in Wikipedia which I found very useful but don't work in Vivaldi, something that was confirmed by other users in their forum, and I reported as a bug. — Ineuw talk 04:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Why isn't the 2009 MUTCD with Revisions 1 and 2 on WS?[edit]

It's appropriately licensed (pd-usgov), and most of the sign images are already on Commons. Why hasn't it been wikified, formatted, etc. and put on here yet? Is it too big for the MediaWiki database to handle? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of things not here yet. What have you done to help add the text? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
it is not at internet archive yet. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
HathiTrust has six million volumes in the public domain, of which roughly six million are not in Wikisource. I'm pretty sure that most of those six million rank higher on my list of things to work on than the MUTCD. Many of the things I choose to work on, works like Foster's Russian bank, a card game for two players, A catalogue of books printed by William Caxton, and Renewal Registrations for 1950, seem to have stirred a lack of interest in others. So it goes. With the millions of available works out there, if you want one done, you're likely to have to do it yourself, at least most of the way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
no one asked you to work on it.
ok i have uploaded to IA; will wait a few days to see if there is a dejavu conversion; will upload to commons, in about a week. at 862 pages it is close to the size limit, but we have done 1000 page documents with chuncked uploads. Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
[ec] I think I get what Prosfilaes is saying. After all, no single contributor can speak for Wikisource; all "we" can do is illustrate individually what motivates us to contribute—the primary determining factor of what texts are worked on here and why. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
we should expect newbies to show up and ask, "what about this work?" and our response should always be: "here is our process for incorporating new works, and let me help you get started." Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Please note, however, that IA no longer creates DjVu versions of texts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
KATMAKROFAN is not a newbie, either here or to Wikimedia projects in general, and considering as they have just volunteered to start a new Wikimedia project, I'm loath to set up a very large project that probably won't go anywhere without them actually saying they're interested in working on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
there was talk of bringin it back, but i guess not.
you persist in your adversive blaming the editor. since you do not do any work here, why do you care if there are more works to do? where are the editors going to come from if you bite them all? you realize there are other transcription projects that are staffed with volunteers from wikipedia? the volunteers go where the adult supervision is. if you cannot interact in a civil manner, maybe you should not interact at all.Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't really see that benign comments like "if you want one done, you're likely to have to do it yourself, at least most of the way" and "I'm loth to set up a very large project that probably won't go anywhere without them actually saying they're interested in working on it" can be fairly construed as biting the newbie. Hesperian 02:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Why is there a need to transcribe this? https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/html_index.htm already exists. My main reason for doing the UK one was that it was only in a PDF format at the time. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2018-03[edit]

12:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-13[edit]

20:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

{{Hanging indent/m}}[edit]

Has {{Hanging indent/m}} ever worked the way that it's supposed to? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I looked at a random sample of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Hanging_indent/m and they all behave the way I'd expect it to (in Firefox on Windows 10). Is it giving you problems? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Missing Pages in Jardine Naturalist's library Bees[edit]

Hi,

I have found two missing page in Index:Jardine Naturalist's library Bees.djvu

The Contents list should contain three pages, however the third page is missing, (as well as the following blank page.)

Would somebody be able to add the two missing pages after Page:Jardine Naturalist's library Bees.djvu/18, or advise if and how I can do it?

The missing pages can be found in an alternate copy of the book at https://archive.org/details/bees34jard

Although the book is dated later, I have checked the pages and apart from the placements of the Plates the pages do match the original book.

(I hope I've posted this request in the correct place, it's my first post here.)

Thanks for any help. Sp1nd01 (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not too hard to insert new pages into the file using the JPGs at the IA. I've done it and uploaded the file. However, by inserting pages, the existing pages from 19 onwards are mis-aligned with the scan. Someone with a bot account can move all these pages up by two to re-align them so you don't have to move ~350 pages by hand! Once that is done, you can transcribe the new pages (there is no OCR in these pages, I am afraid).
FYI, the commands used to convert JPGs and insert are:
c44 bees34jard_0015.jpg bees-15.djvu
c44 bees34jard_0016.jpg bees-16.djvu
djvm -i Jardine_Naturalist\'s_library_Bees.djvu bees-16.djvu 19
djvm -i Jardine_Naturalist\'s_library_Bees.djvu bees-15.djvu 19
More info (maybe too much!) at Help:DJVU files. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Bot request made at Wikisource:Bot_requests#Realign_pages_19_onwards_of_Index:Jardine_Naturalist's_library_Bees.djvu. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your time in fixing this for me, and for the explanation. I'll transcribe the new pages once they have been re-aligned. Sp1nd01 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to update, I've now completed work on the book as far as I can. While adding the plates I noticed that Page:Jardine Naturalist's library Bees.djvu/317 and Page:Jardine Naturalist's library Bees.djvu/319 both contain Plate 5. Does someone need to delete one of the duplicate pages or should they be left as is? Sp1nd01 (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Author update[edit]

Can someone please change the "wikilivres" text to "Bibliowiki"? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

template talk:author is the spot for requests. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Mass reverts of {{Engine}}[edit]

User:EncycloPetey is removing {{Engine}} from several long works where I have added it and told me to post here for some reason. So what does everybody think--are longer works (e.g. The Subjection of Women or The Problems of Philosophy) enhanced by its presence or should they be removed? Should we have the ability to search works at all? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Koavf has had the use of this template explained multiple times: (1) Wikisource does NOT need every work tagged with {{engine}}, and (2) Featured Texts should not be altered like this either. I'm tired of explaining it over and over, and to have what amounts to vandalistic tagging continue without understanding. He tags everything of any length, including disambiguation pages. It's ridiculous. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: And why are you removing it from non-featured works? Which works should have it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please refer to the discussions where this was explained to you before. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-01#Search_template_question? I don't know what else you are referencing but there is no rubric there for when a work is disallowed from having local search. You asked me to not add it to other featured texts or candidates so I stopped adding it. Now you are just indiscriminately removing it and harassing me on my talk. Can someone else please give feedback on the actual question at hand: under what conditions should a work have {{engine}} added? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You admit above were asked "not add it to other featured texts or candidates", yet when I removed it from those candidates, you undid my edits to put them back on the Featured text candidates: 1 2 So, although your statement above is technically true, it comes across as untrue. And as I said before, you have added the search function to disambiguation pages, as well as incomplete works with no content, as well as multiple Featured texts after the fact. In short, you tag works indiscriminately. No, Wikisource doesn't have a "rubric" because we're not Wikipedia and don't mire ourselves in that kind of endless procedural debate, but your tagging indiscriminately goes against any sort of common sense. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
My "common sense" is that long works could benefit from search. Again: which works should have internal search? Since you seem to not like any rule or policy about this, I guess it's just whatever you feel like should have it? Please give me some rationale for why certain works shouldn't be searchable. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
(A) You can look at which works use the Template. (B) Two people already responded to this question some time ago. Your request to insert the engine on a Featured text was denied with full explanation. Why you persist in turning this issue into drama, I do not know. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You asked me to post here. There is no documentation for the template indicating where it should or shouldn't be used, so I am asking for feedback. Be civil, please. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I asked you to post here about use of the template. You opened the discussion by saying I had "from several long works where I have added it", which shows that you were aware of the previous discussion about use of the template, despite feigning ignorance. The way you opened the discussion was provocative, making out that I had committed some offence, when I has acted according to responses you were already aware of. Asking me to "be civil" when you undo admin edits, tell me to go away after pinging me over and over with questions and don't get the responses you like, and create drama by opening a thread with accusations is disingenuous. You already had feedback you didn't like, so you pretended to forget it. Civility works both ways, and invoking it after being rude yourself is hypocritical. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for all that. Now, can someone else please give feedback on the question: when do you think that {{engine}} should be applied to works? I basically think that any long work (I have no explicit page count or kilobytes in mind) should have it because it's very helpful to readers. Does anyone else have a perspective to add here? Does anyone know of community discussion on when and how {{engine}} should be used? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Two previous responses to this question are here.
And for clarity, Koavf thinks A Christmas Carol is a "long" work, as well as Jekyyl and Hyde. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please stop--you are just being harassing. I am asking for community feedback which is what you wanted in the first place. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
No, you came here to accuse me; witness for example the title and start of this thread. You began this series of events when you popped in after a prolonged absence to undo my edits, then ping me repeatedly, then tell me to go away when I answered your pings, then began posting complaints. All over edits which had been justified fully to you, and despite having been previously blocked for reverting my admin edits. Don't act surprised when you knew all this beforehand. In any case, I am part of the community and the only admin online for the past several hours. If you want community feedback, you're going to get community feedback on the issues you've raised. You cannot ask members to stop giving feedback that you have specifically asked for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey, @Koavf: (edit conflict to the max) Since you're arguing about non-existent criteria for a misused template: here's my proposal for some:

"This template may be added to the header of the top-level page of any collective work of more than one physical volume (be it a periodical, a newspaper, an encyclopedia, a society transaction, or something else), as well as the header of the top-level page of a dictionary or the header of the top-level page of a series of government documents. It should not be added to lower-level pages of any of those types of aforementioned works (even if those may be divided into multiple physical components), nor to any work, not among the types of works for which this template's inclusion is permissible, whose division into physical volumes may be construed as being purely arbitrary. For example, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times, The New Student's Reference Work, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, along with Dictionary of the Foochow Dialect and United States Statutes at Large, are valid pages in which to include {{engine}}, while The Dial/Volume 15 and Daniel Deronda are not considered valid pages in which to include this."

Strengthen or weaken this how you will. Mahir256 (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think the search box adds value to works such as dictionaries, newspaper articles, encyclopaedias and such collective works where multiple subjects are treated of and a search would help you find what you're looking for. There's no point in using it in novels, treatises etc. where the book is actually meant to be read in a certain order or flow. I think it looks a little cheesy in these works and doesn't suit them at all and would have little to no use. Jpez (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (my opinion) there should be clear value in adding "engine" template, and for the two identified works I don't see that clear value. I see that one even has a linked index. Jpez's commentary seems to predominantly cover the cases where it adds clear value, though there will be natural variations. We have long held to keeping the header minimalistic, and allowing the user to get straight into the work. In the cited examples I would be comfortable wirh the addition of edition=yes and the addition of template:engine to the talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreeing with the above - {{Engine}} is useful in encyclopedias, dictionaries, magazines, and other works that are designed to be searched and read in sections rather than read from cover to cover. In novels and short works it's kind of pointless, and in disambig pages it doesn't even make sense. I'd also suggest that in absence of clear consensus, these questions be handled on a per-work basis, reverting neither the template's addition nor its removal without a discussion on the work's talk page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with a "per work" discussion in this instence. If the general question had already been proposed (it had) and answered by two different editors (it had) who were also admins (they were) who came to a consensus conclusion (they did), with no other responses from the community for more than a month, then starting multiple new and identical discussions on more than a dozen tagged talk pages of short stories, incomplete works, disambiguation pages, etc. which had all been tagged with the template in a mass tagging effort is simply a wasted effort and needless distraction. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

All that nonsense and personal sniping aside, it seems like there is consensus that {{Engine}} should be used for multi-volume works (an encyclopedia, the print run of a magazine, a large omnibus like The Complete Works of [x], etc.) Correct? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Nested footnotes[edit]

I think I’ve cracked the nested footnotes problem:

This is normal text.<ref name="outer" />{{#tag:ref|This is the outer footnote.<ref>This is the inner footnote.</ref>|follow="outer"}}

{{smallrefs}}

renders as:

This is normal text.[1]

  1. This is the outer footnote.[2]
  2. This is the inner footnote.

This method does not rely on making arbitrary new footnote groups, it displays the footnotes in the expected order, and it correctly numbers them. If there is no objection, I’d like to update the Help section with this method. χchi (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Question: Will this method (or the previous one, for that matter) work if one of the footnotes spans more than one page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
It’s already been tested when the outer footnote spans two pages and the inner footnote is either on the first page or the second page only. I could test other scenarios. Are there sandboxes in the Page namespace? χchi (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Also tested when both footnotes span two pages and when only the inner footnote spans two pages. χchi (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment: There are some cases where this new method would definitely be of great help (assuming no one finds technical problems), but most nested footnotes I've had to work with had two separate sets of footnotes in the text. So, it would be useful to rretain the other method, with footnotes in separate groups, for those sorts of situations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Good point, the method using grouped footnotes can still be used in those cases. However, I remember reading that we do not have to faithfully reproduce the footnote style of any work. While it’s true that nested footnotes are often shown separately on individual pages of some works, I don’t see the advantage of grouping together all nested footnotes of a given work or chapter when transcluded in the Main space. In fact, I would prefer that all footnotes that come from a same page follow each other in the reflist. χchi (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd say it depends on the work. There are works I've edited where the entire work has two separate sets of footnotes throughout. I wouldn't want to combine those sequentially if the author went to the trouble to make a distinction between them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
That’s right, in those cases the footnotes should remain separate regardless of nestedness. Do you have an example I could have a look at? χchi (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Index:Romeo and Juliet (Dowden).djvu is an example where there are two sets of footnotes throughout the text of the play. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
No, the first ref is an empty tag. Notice the /> at the end of it. χchi (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-14[edit]

19:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Page images errors[edit]

Looks like the latest update is causing more problems loading page images in the edit window. A hard purge seems to fix the problem, but it must be done every time on every page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

yeah - wow, hard to do initial proofread at this rate, at least the coloured buttons are pretty… Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Lovely buttons indeed! But the absence of the image is not so lovely. Quite often the image is shown as a small stripe in the upper left corner of the image-window. I found that clicking on the page number in the Index often brings the image back. Sometimes two times clicking is necessary. --Dick Bos (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here’s a temporary fix one can add to their individual css page:

.prp-page-image { overflow: visible !important; }
.prp-page-image > img { min-width: 80% !important; height: auto !important; width: auto !important; }

It’s ugly but it works for the moment. χchi (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

i can always go to tasks that do not require an image, but it does strike at the purpose of this site. is it related to the old problem with index page not showing colour status of pages? that needed a purge to refresh "null edit" as well. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@User:Χ, Thanks, but the fix does not really work. It shows the image far too large. --Dick Bos (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes I’m aware. You can play around with the min-width of the image to fit your screen, but in the end it’s not really meant to fix the actual bug, just a quick and dirty workaround to be able to see the image. χchi (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment quick look shows that it is setting an image height of 15px, and looks to be poking into the toolbar. If you view the image and return, then it resets the page fine. So guessing that it is a page rendering order issue, and nothing to do with the image itself. [That is all I currently have time to do. ]— billinghurst sDrewth 23:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    It is definitely a rendering issue, as if I go back and then forward (rock and roll) from the page, as the image is available it renders to size just fine when I revisit. Purging will not necessarily fix the issue as it will try to do everything from scratch, and that then faces same rendering timing issues. Seems that it is a javascript issue where we need to get the script to better dynamically deliver the page, and not get caught in the toolbar image rendering. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

We're about a week later now, and this nasty problem still exists. Is anyone looking after it? That would be great. It's far beyond my technical knowledge to do anything, so please.... Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Anniversary works[edit]

November will mark the anniversary of en-Wikisource. A proposal has been made to feature one or more works in celebration (see WS:FTC#Kipling's If— for more). --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Collected Physical Papers[edit]

I would like to have this work featured in Nov, to coincide with the author's birth-cum-death month, along with other works (by others) to celebrate WS anniv (this multi-featuring has come up in FTC for discussion, but not yet decided). This contains most of the important papers by this scientist, including those pertaining to the invention of the radio and the papers on plant research. Is anybody interested or can manage some time (Nov is still far away) for going through and validating this science work? This is an important work, considered a classic, and would be very good as FT. Thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Frankenstein is 200 years old this year[edit]

On a similar note to Hrishikes', I see that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein turns 200 this year. We have a version that is not scan-supported, and maybe as a community we should be looking to get another version in place. It would be something useful to flag-wave for the site. I also wondering whether it is something that we could flag to sister Wikisources to see if we could collectively get multiple language versions available. That could make the WSes go from flag-wave to Mexican wave. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Our version is of 1831 vintage; scan is here: https://archive.org/details/ghostseer01schiuoft. Better option would be the original 3-vol version of 1818, if it can be found. Hrishikes (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @Hrishikes: You are in luck! Mahir256 (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Thanks. Also here. I'll try to add the vols. These have significant difference from 1831 and later versions (see here). Hrishikes (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems we can and should do both the 1818 version and the 1831 version, especially as the second is more well known.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Multiples? That would be a treat! Building a corpus is useful, especially where any translations can be tied back to a particular version. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I also think if we can get some contemporaneous secondary material like reviews, criticism, condemnation of the ungodly eeeviillls, etc., it would play to Wikisource's strengths as more than a simple host of book-like works (that's what PG is for). If we had enough, there could even be a Frankenstein portal? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
For various versions, English and foreign, see here. This is for any cross-wiki event. Hrishikes (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
There's a 1912 German version, but I can't find anything about the translator Heinz Widtmann for German copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1143204/ Here's the 1821 French translation. -Einstein95 (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Internet Archive has some additional PD works by and about Mary Shelley. And I suppose, if we wanted to, some sort of collaboration could be extended to include Polidori's vampire book and Byron's fragment and anything else relating to the night of telling horror stories that inspired Frankenstein. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Scan, transcription, and translation source for historical Japanese texts[edit]

w:en:Japanese Historical Text Initiative. For example, http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/wa03/wa03_01594/wa03_01594_0001/wa03_01594_0001.html and https://jhti.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/jhti/brows.cgi?page=&line=&hon=&moji=&sbpage=1&kazu=3&key1=&key2=&taisho=&honname=3&chk=&CHKYES=&sel=0&brows=a could be combined to make a scan-supported Engishiki entry. Arlo Barnes (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

According to the Search Texts page, the translator for Engi Shiki is Felicia Gressitt Bock, who appears to have translated it in 1972 and published it in Japan. This makes it well-within copyright coverage, as Japan is life+50. Also, according to the Engi Shiki "Editions and Copyright Information" page:

Permission to publish this translation electronically was granted by the translator, Dr. Felicia Bock, to JHTI in 2001.

-Einstein95 (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature[edit]

This is a weird one. The edition we have here says it is basically a selection of the longer articles, apparently verbatim, from an earlier edition of the same book. The first edition would thus apparently contain those articles included in the second edition, again, apparently verbatim, as well as additional shorter articles. How to proceed? John Carter (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is this unusual? Treat it like any other work, proofreading the scan and so forth. If you want to add an earlier edition, go for it, and we can help you create a {{versions}} page to list the various editions. If you have more specific concerns about this work, I will be able to answer your concerns directly, and I'll do my best to help out. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
We work on editions as published. If they iterate the data in a subsequent edition or previous edition, and you would prefer to work on another edition, that is completely a choice you have. We disambiguate based on head of the work, so it may mean moving pages, and letting us know would be useful as it isn't a usual disambiguation. To note that some of the EB1911 articles are based on, or close to verbatim EB9 <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 06:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

New Proofread buttons icons[edit]

Hi everybody! When you activate the option "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" of your preferences, then in edit mode of pages, some proofread icons are different than those stated at Help:Page scans (that is, the "old" buttons Button category plus.png, Text columns.png and so on). I've been searching on Commons, Phabricator and Gerrit which are the files for those icons but I've been unsuccessful. I want to update the help page in some Wikisources, and link the new icons, so I can tell to newbies which buttons they have to click on. But the help page doesn't show the new buttons. Does anybody know which are the files? Also, Wikisource page status buttons.png now is different (whatever the preferences you have activated). Any help will be welcome! Thanks! -Aleator (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and also the files shown at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, that is, MediaWiki:Proofreadpage-preferences-showheaders-label and MediaWiki:Proofreadpage-preferences-horizontal-layout-label perhaps becomes confusing to some users.-Aleator (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
You may need to ask at Meta. As far as I know, the English Wikisource wasn't consulted on these changes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
At least hovering over icons gives some direction. Page status icons do resemble easter eggs now. Is it permissible to take screenshots of icons and upload to Commons? The aforementioned page status buttons image was uploaded that way by User:Dominic. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
yes, please take a snip, with those fancy tl;dr templates. it will be nice for demonstrating that we noticed the change, even if unconsulted. Slowking4SvG's revenge
Tomorrow, if there are no objections. What are tl & dr? Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
sorry for the editorial comment, the template [43] is so "too long and did not read" that i thought it appropriate when reusing WMF content. why we would need a special template, i do not know, but since it is there…. Slowking4SvG's revenge 11:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm partly to blame, I think, or at least I knew about what was going on (a bit). I started working on the OOUI version of the radio buttons (just out of interest really, and because "everything" is supposed to be converted to OOUI eventually), but never finished it, and recently Esanders submitted a patch to do the same, and it was accepted. There's some more discussion about this at phab:T164753. Sam Wilson 04:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aleator: Have updated/added buttons to Commons and updated Help:Page scans page only:

Wikisource page status buttons.png
Wikisource previous page button.png previous page
Wikisource next page button.png next page
Wikisource navigate to index button.png the Index for the page
Wikisource show hide header footer button.png show/hide the interface for editing the header and footer
Wikisource vertical horizontal layout button.png vertical/horizontal layout
Wikisource zoom out button.png zoom out on scan
Wikisource zoom in button.png zoom in on scan
Wikisource reset zoom original size button.png reset zoom

Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all :) -Aleator (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone perhaps update this image (upload a new version of the file at Commons, also updating file info as necessary) to reflect the new buttons? Pretty much any unproofread page (with discretion) in edit mode should do. Preferably with settings a new editor would encounter... My background has color to make it easier on my eyes, and I also have a customized edit bar... or I would update myself. Thanks if you can. The image is used on about 3 WS pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

RE: my post above: If no one else is able to update as requested, I can create another account myself for just such a purpose. Unless there is an objection to my doing so. That way, when any new changes occur, I can make updates to reflect how a new editor would view pages/images. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Update: I was able to log in to my old (original) user account to take screenshots, and have updated the images on the following help pages:

If anyone finds more images in need up updating, please let me know. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-15[edit]

18:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Over 6,000 public domain childrens' books[edit]

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/baldwin/all/thumbs If someone has the time and effort to comb thru them, there is a lot we can add. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

see also Wikisource:Scriptorium#Huge_collection_of_historical_children's_books_from_UFL above. the ones with articles would be a good starting point w:List_of_children's_classic_books. Slowking4SvG's revenge 21:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, this is totally redundant. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The place to add this data is Wikisource:Sources. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

United States District Court of Southern New York Documents in Public Domain?[edit]

Hello, I have a PDF which I downloaded from a government website a while ago. Can I upload it to Wikisource? The court is "United States District Court of Southern New York" the document is dated Oct 24, 2003. Thank you. Michael Ten (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If it is a court document, then the file should be loaded to Commons with their tag of {{PD-USGov}}billinghurst sDrewth 03:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
yes, if they are work product of u.s. government employee. see some examples here Portal:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States (and if you have a few, you could create a portal as well) Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Schindlerjuden[edit]

The article at w:Schindlerjuden currently contains a list of everyone on "Schindler's List" of Jews saved during World War II. This seems to be more appropriate content for Wikisource than for Wikipedia. I'm not sure how/where such a list would be added here, nor even whether it would be on this site or a German-language Wikisource. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

WS:WWI is your guide here, and we wouldn't collect a compiled list solely due to the fact that it is a compiled list. We reproduce historical documents or published works. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The compiled list on enwiki is apparently based on two specific historical documents from 1945 currently located at Yad Vashem; I'm unsure if reproductions of the originals are available online. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
more appropriate for wikidata. talked about this at holocaust museum, they do not have a copy of the original document to transcribe, rather they have compiled lists online https://www.ushmm.org/online/hsv/source_view.php?SourceId=20610 --Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
If you could find a copy of the original list to reproduce, it would be in scope at German Wikisource. I could only find about half the pages scanned however. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Pulchrism: Championing Beauty as the Purpose of Art[edit]

Over at Wikipedia the page for the author of this self-published text has been deleted three times:

It also carries a fairly clear copyright notice: "© Jesse Waugh, © Carpophage Press, All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review."104.163.158.37 03:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Permission was granted via OTRS (ticket #2016082510004762), see File:Pulchrism - Championing Beauty as the Purpose of Art.pdf. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, from https://www.jessewaugh.com/catalogues/:

PULCHRISM: Championing Beauty as The Purpose of Art is licensed as Creative Commons category CC-BY. See it here on Wikisource.

with the last sentence being a link to the Wikisource page in question. CC-BY is the license used by Wikisource, so I don't see an issue here from a copyright perspective. Whether it should be removed due to the possibility of it being self-published is another question. -Einstein95 (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
WS:PD is the place to address this if someone wishes to pursue. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

104.163.158.37, why are you trying to remove all references to this person across Wikimedia projects? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Conversation doesn't belong here. If the user wishes to pursue it, then they can explain it at that conversation at the identified place. Please don't prolong the conversation here. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
i find the conversation just fine here. we have anonymous editors here inserting english drama across all wikis. the amount of vindictiveness you will tolerate is a policy question, not confined to any specific case. and editors here should be aware there are anonymous sea-lions seeking to induce you to act on their behalf. Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

New edit interface[edit]

A few days ago the interface for (source) edits was updated, apparently. Some signs in the toolbar are changed. But also the little grey lines around the edit sections (header, page body, and footer) have disappeared, which is really nasty. When loading the page the lines can be seen in a very short flash. But after that they disappear, and I can't get them back. Am I the only editor around here who does not like this? --Dick Bos (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

My lines/boundaries are obscured between header/page body/footer now as well. It does throw me off some. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It makes it nearly impossible to tell which section of the page is being edited. There have been several editing interface problems introduced in recent weeks. Should we compile a list of them, get signatures and present them to Mediawiki, with a statement that these constant changes to wikisource without notification of, testing on, or prior input from the affected project(s) is unacceptable? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree this problem is annoying—I'm also having it—but IMO the OOUIfication of the edit window isn't a problem once you get used to the change, and the fact that Dick Bos sees the lines appearing then disappearing again suggests a regression rather than a deliberate choice. I'll see about creating a Phab ticket. BethNaught (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Keeping us informed and even involving the WS community in the process before changes are made is also desired so that we can be prepared to make the necessary changes with images/information on our help pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
These (little) changes are indeed really nasty in the normal process of editing. Good ideas of @EncycloPetey and @Londonjackbooks! And thanks to @BethNaught for making a "Phab ticket" for this. So first of all: make a list of these little problems, somewhere, and then present this list to Wikimedia, and next keep our list updated with information about what is (not) going on ..... I will be happy to help, but I'm a typical (non-English) "end-user", so don't expect too much from me, when it concerns these "technical" things. --Dick Bos (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
this is a perpetual problem, where the coders do not do UX, are wikipedia focused, and underestimate just how disruptive "cosmetic" changes are. Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are people only seeing this difference in the Page: ns? [Noting that I am not even sure of the issue that you describe, so a bit unable to assist]. If it is, then it could be a Proofread Page issue, and related to the fix that Tpt did for the page order load. Presuming that Tpt's fix will come out next week. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    And I see that Tpt has added a comment to that effect since I last checked. So, it is nothing related to WP developers, it is only our local developers. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
You're right. Sorry. I forgot to mention that. The problem here described is in the Page namespace, indeed. --Dick Bos (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
and the new interface does not extend down the "page body" field, requiring more scrolling up and down to proofread. a refresh of the "scroll within scroll" would be nice. Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Small-size scan when creating a new page[edit]

Hi everyone,

I have a problem when I'm creating a new page in the Page: namespace. The scan is displayed as a really small picture. When I refresh the page, the scan goes back to normal size. Any clues about how I can correct that ?

[51]

Assassas77 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Assassas77: ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ #Page images errorsbillinghurst sDrewth 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-16[edit]

15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Page: ns fixes above[edit]

The display fixes noted above are noted to be deployed with the .30 rollout. This is scheduled for about 2018-04-18 circa 2000, and you should see its rollout noted at toollabs:sal/production search for "1.31.0-wmf.30" and it will also display here in Special:Versionbillinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)